“In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was also not a citizen of any state and, accordingly, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the US Constitution requires for a US federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.[3] After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the US Congress's constitutional powers.”
You want how many names? ...5? .....7? You can go look up all the names you want for yourself. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Dred Scott. Read it and weep.
You want how many names? ...5? .....7? You can go look up all the names you want for yourself. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Dred Scott. Read it and weep.
I want five opinions, of the nine filed, that support the nonsense claims of your anonymous Wikipedia source. Correct page citations from the official opinions in U.S. Reports would nice. Even Wikipedia's footnoted source, as I quoted from, shows the article to be full of crap.
It is apparent that you are just too lazy to actually read the court opinions, and you do not know what you are talking about. You take a case that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a majority of the Court, and fantasize all nature of specious holdings by a minority of the Court. In the history of the Court, no minority has ever issued a holding on anything. A three or four judge minority, no matter how much you like what they said, cannot speak for the Court on any matter.
The Opinion of the Court by Taney begins at 60 U.S. 393. The other opinions follow that of Taney.
For Scott's ownership by Congressman Chaffee of Massachusetts, Chaffee's quitclaim deed to Taylor Blow of Missouri, the collection of Scott's wages held in escrow by Congressman Chaffee's wife, and Scott's emancipation by Taylor Blow, see below. Read it and weep.
Boston (MA) Herald, “Dred Scott,” March 14, 1857DRED SCOTT. It is stated that by the decision of the Supreme Court, Dred Scott and his family will legally become "the chattels" of Dr. Chaffee of Springfield, one of the Massachusetts delegation in Congress, that gentlemen having married the widow of Dr. Emerson of Missouri, the master of Dred Scott, who carried him into Illinois.
New York Times, “Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family,” May 27, 1857
The following text is presented here in complete form, as it originally appeared in print. Spelling and other typographical errors have been preserved as in the original.
Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family.ST. LOUIS, Tuesday May 26.
DRED SCOTT, with his wife and two daughters, were emancipated today by TAYLOR BLOW, Esq. They had all been conveyed to him by Mr. CHAFFE, of Massachusetts, for that purpose, as the law of this State on the subject requires, that the emancipation shall be performed by a citizen of Missouri. ...
26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 2631
Tuesday May 26th 1857Taylor Blow, who is personally known to the court, comes into open court, and acknowledges the execution by him of a Deed of Emancipation to his slaves, Dred Scott, aged about forty eight years, of full negro blood and color, and Harriet Scott wife of said Dred, aged thirty nine years, also of full negro blood & color, and Eliza Scott a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged nineteen years of full negro color, and Lizzy Scott, also a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged ten years likewise of full negro blood & color.
Wednesday May 27th 1857Dred Scott.
vs. )
Irene Emerson. )On motion of defendants attorney it is ordered that the Sheriff of St. Louis County do render his account to the court of the wages that have come to his hands of the earnings of the above named plaintiff and that the said sheriff do pay to the defendant all such wages that now remain in his hands, excepting all commissions and expenses to which the said Sheriff may be legally entitled.